Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's Initiation

[Guest guest]

I would like to start by addressing objection #1. In case it was not

clear, these objections are in this order because that is the rough

order in which they are found in a paper published on Neal

Delmonico's website quoted previously. Otherwise they are in no

specific order as far as I can tell.

 

Here is the first objection as I have paraphrased it:

 

> 1) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received a "dream" initation only from his

> guru Srila Gaurakishora dasa babaji. He never received a physical

> initiation. Hence his initiation was not genuine.

 

There are two components of this objection:

 

(1a) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta recieved a dream initiation from his guru

Srila Gaurakishora dasa babaji.

 

(1b) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received only a dream initiation, and

never an actual initiation from his guru Srila Gaurakishora dasa

babaji.

 

As far as (1a) is concerned, there appears to be no objective

evidence that this "dream initiation" ever occurred. We are asked to

believe this story on the grounds that some devotees in the Gaudiiya

line, whose credentials we must also accept on faith, said that this

was so. But then, even Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati has some

impressive accomplishments under his belt, the formation of 64

Gaudiya-mathas, the reform of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the initiation of

the devotee who spread Krishna's holy name all over the world, and so

on and so forth, so why not believe his account? In the worse case

scenario, there does not seem to be any objective reason whom one

should believe.

 

As far as objection (1b) is concerned, it is obvious that if even if

one claims to have had a "dream initiation," that does not preclude

ever having had a real initiation. The account of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's initiation which his followers are

familiar with is documented in _A Ray of Vishnu_, Chapter 3, page 18:

 

"After thus indicating his readiness to take his life, Siddhaanta

Sarasvatii began to cry. Shriila Gaura Kishora daasa Babaajii's heart

was melted to see this, so he told him to take bath in the Sarasvatii

and then come back to him. At the time of initiation, he gave

Siddhaanta Sarasvatii the name: Shrii Vaarshabhaanavi-devii-dayita

daasa."

 

If one is going to criticize Rupa Vilasa dasa's biographical work on

the grounds that he is in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's line and is thus

biased, then the same criticism can be again leveled against those

who promote an alternative accounting of the initiation. Accepting

that there are two sides in this matter, those who accept Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta's concept of paramparaa, varnaashrama, etc and those

who do not, everyone who claims to be a Gaudiiya Vaishnava is going

to fall into one of these two categories and hence be predisposed to

one or the other set of biases.

 

Similarly, if one is going to argue that we can only believe Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta's initiation on the grounds that it was his word,

then using the same logic, one should also question the initiation of

Madhvaachaarya by Vyaasadeva, or even the initiation of Lakshmiipati

Tiirtha by Shrii Vyaasatiirtha. None of these initiations can be

verified objectively. There should be a *uniform* standard for

determining the legitimacy of an initiation, as opposed to one

standard for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and something different for

everyone else. Even if it is argued that these other examples were

more remote in time, then should we also question every initiation

that did not have readily available witnesses for cross-examination?

It seems rather uncultured to accuse someone, however indirectly, of

lying about his guru simply because one lacks the empiric evidence to

prove it.

 

Note that I am not touching upon Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's sannyaasi

initiation here, or even whether or not his initiation was a shiksha

or diiksha initation. This we will discuss later.

 

yours,

 

- K